Re: [Cfrg] Safecurves draft

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <mpg@elzevir.fr> wrote:
> On 08/01/2014 18:11, Watson Ladd wrote:
>> draft-ladd-safecurves contains the Safecurves with orders
>> 2^255+\epsilon and higher.
>> I forgot to update the TOC, but that shouldn't stop the substantive
>> conversation.
>>
>> Does anyone object to these curves being approved for IETF standard
>> body use/typos/general nastiness?
>
> I'm in favour of these curves being approved for IETF use.
>
> I think the draft itself, however, should be expanded to go into some details
> about the advantages of the curves and the differences with existing curves.
>
> I have one question about the curves themselves: why are there two Montgomery
> curves over GF(2^383-187)? I thought the curves were chosen by a deterministic
> process, and the smallest 'a' coefficient giving the desired properties was
> always used.

It's because one has an Elligator map and the other does not. Some
applications require
it, but not all.

>
> Also, is it on purpose that you didn't include E-521 in your draft?

I simply copied the safecurves.cr.yp.to list starting at Curve25519.
There is no E-521 on that list.

>
> Manuel.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg

-- 
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety deserve neither  Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin